The dangers of our new normal...

[OCinBuffalo]

How the CIA made Google: https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e#.gez34zl6m

 

No one is saying Environmentalists cannot be violent extremists. No argument there.

 

But as we've seen over the past decade, mass surveillance and bulk collection doesn't stop terrorists or terrorist acts, that's not the intention of the program.

You can't just pretend to read minds, and therefore "know" the intention of the program.

 

You can point out logical flaws, such as "Why bulk collect, thus making the job of separating the intel from the noise orders of magnitude harder?" but, you can't sit here and tell me you know the entire intention of the program 100% accurately.

 

Well, not until you've eliminated all the other possible intentions, again, logically, and are left with the only intention that fits. But, I seriously doubt you can do that with any certainty without being read into the program(never) or being allowed to personally interview all those responsible for defining the scope of the program, designing it, and/or charged with executing it(also never). Without that data, most of what you are doing is speculation, SWAGing, throwing half-assed assertions around...and a whole lot of projection: all you can do is project what you think these guys did/thought given what you've already determined to be their intention. Um, no chance of that being an objective exercise.

 

And, the real problem is and remains: profiling, the most logical way to get this done, is forbidden by this president and his ilk. It would make infinitely more sense to target collect, not bulk collect, data on the people we know to be most likely to commit acts of terror, however they are defined.

 

Instead of most likely? We get an as phony as it is ridiculous "==" placed between ISIS and the ghost of Timothy McVeigh. Ergo, we can't profile anyone who is a Muslim or looks Arab...because...some Michigan Militia white dudes are still playing paintball somewhere, and therefore they represent an equivalent threat?

 

If you don't like bulk collection, then you better get on board with profiling...because the 3rd choice is to do nothing. That worked out great for France, didn't it?

 

Like it or not we are at war. There are no nice wars. There are no easy wars. There has never been a war in which some ideals weren't compromised in favor of winning the war.

 

As I say below: Ideals are peaceful. History is violent.

Edited January 20, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

[The Bush-Cheney Administration] puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorist without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

—Senator Barack Obama, presidential campaign address on national security policy, August 1, 2007

 

 

I think the American people understand that there are some trade-offs involved…I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have a hundred percent security and also then have a hundred percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.

—President Barack Obama, responding to the disclosure that the National Security Agency was systematically collecting records about Americans’ domestic phone calls in bulk, June 7, 2013

The story of Power Wars is what happened between these two quotes.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/power-wars-how-obama-justified-expanded-bush-era-surveillance/

Edited January 28, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[OCinBuffalo]

 

The story of Power Wars is what happened between these two quotes.

[The Bush-Cheney Administration] puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorist without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

—Senator Barack Obama, presidential campaign address on national security policy, August 1, 2007

 

 

I think the American people understand that there are some trade-offs involved…I think it’s important to recognize that you can’t have a hundred percent security and also then have a hundred percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.

—President Barack Obama, responding to the disclosure that the National Security Agency was systematically collecting records about Americans’ domestic phone calls in bulk, June 7, 2013

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/power-wars-how-obama-justified-expanded-bush-era-surveillance/

 

Yes, because Obama got a seat at the adult's table for the first time in his life, and realized that the discussion there is very different from that of the kid's table. He learned that his Bush Bad campaign canards simply did not suffice as an actionable foreign policy, or domestic security policy.

 

Another thing Obama learned that day: responsibility. For the first time in his life, Obama became responsible for something. Now, is it a little odd to go from nothing, to repsonsible for the US? Yeah...which is why he should never have been elected, and we've seen his results. But, Obama realized that with his authority, he also got responsibility.

 

Obama learned being responsible means people blame you for things when they don't go right.

 

But, the apparatus that existed BEFORE the day that Obama became a man, helped him learn, and protected him while he was learning. He still fails as a man, and a leader, but, the good news is that terror warriors that actually do the fighting are good on both counts.

[DC Tom]

Yes, because Obama got a seat at the adult's table for the first time in his life, and realized that the discussion there is very different from that of the kid's table. He learned that his Bush Bad campaign canards simply did not suffice as an actionable foreign policy, or domestic security policy.

 

Actually, I don't think he ever learned that.

[Deranged Rhino]

Programming note for anyone curious. There's a livestream event tonight, link below:

The balance between national security and government intrusion on the rights of private citizens will be the topic of a panel discussion featuring renowned linguist and MIT professor Noam Chomsky, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, and Interceptco-founding editor Glenn Greenwald. Nuala O’Connor, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, will act as moderator.

Chomsky and Greenwald will appear in person at the event, hosted in Tucson by the University of Arizona College of Behavioral Sciences, while Snowden will appear via videoconference.

https://theintercept.com/a-conversation-about-privacy/

[GG]

 

Programming note for anyone curious. There's a livestream event tonight, link below:

The balance between national security and government intrusion on the rights of private citizens will be the topic of a panel discussion featuring renowned linguist and MIT professor Noam Chomsky, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, and Interceptco-founding editor Glenn Greenwald. Nuala O’Connor, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, will act as moderator.

Chomsky and Greenwald will appear in person at the event, hosted in Tucson by the University of Arizona College of Behavioral Sciences, while Snowden will appear via videoconference.

https://theintercept.com/a-conversation-about-privacy/

 

 

You expect there to be "balance" on that panel?

[Deranged Rhino]

You expect there to be "balance" on that panel?

Never said there would be.

[B-Man]

For DR;

 

 

FEINSTEIN-BURR: The Senate’s Draft Encryption Bill Is ‘Ludicrous, Dangerous, Technically Illiterate.’.........(Feinstein D - Burr R )

 

As Apple battled the FBI for the last two months over the agency’s demands that Apple help crack its own encryption, both the tech community and law enforcement hoped that Congress would weigh in with some sort of compromise solution. Now Congress has spoken on crypto, and privacy advocates say its “solution” is the most extreme stance on encryption yet.

 

On Thursday evening, the draft text of a bill called the “Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016,” authored by offices of Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Burr, was published online by the Hill.¹ It’s a nine-page piece of legislation that would require people to comply with any authorized court order for data—and if that data is “unintelligible,” the legislation would demand that it be rendered “intelligible.” In other words, the bill would make illegal the sort of user-controlled encryption that’s in every modern iPhone, in all billion devices that run Whatsapp’s messaging service, and in dozens of other tech products. “This basically outlaws end-to-end encryption,” says Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “It’s effectively the most anti-crypto bill of all anti-crypto bills.”

 

Kevin Bankston, the director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, goes even further: “I gotta say in my nearly 20 years of work in tech policy this is easily the most ludicrous, dangerous, technically illiterate proposal I’ve ever seen,” he says.

 

The bill, Hall and Bankston point out, doesn’t specifically suggest any sort of backdoored encryption or other means to even attempt to balance privacy and encryption, and actually claims to not require any particular design limitations on products. Instead, it states only that communications firms must provide unencrypted data to law enforcement or the means for law enforcement to grab that data themselves. “To uphold the rule of law and protect the security and interests of the United States, all persons receiving an authorized judicial order for information or data must provide, in a timely manner, responsive and intelligible information or data, or appropriate technical assistance to obtain such information or data.”

 

 

More at the Link:

 

 

matt blaze ‎@mattblaze

I could spend all night listing the various ways that Feinstein-Burr is flawed & dangerous. But let's just say, "in every way possible."

12:56 AM - 8 Apr 2016

 

[OCinBuffalo]

 

For DR;

 

 

FEINSTEIN-BURR: The Senate’s Draft Encryption Bill Is ‘Ludicrous, Dangerous, Technically Illiterate.’.........(Feinstein D - Burr R )

 

As Apple battled the FBI for the last two months over the agency’s demands that Apple help crack its own encryption, both the tech community and law enforcement hoped that Congress would weigh in with some sort of compromise solution. Now Congress has spoken on crypto, and privacy advocates say its “solution” is the most extreme stance on encryption yet.

 

On Thursday evening, the draft text of a bill called the “Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016,” authored by offices of Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Burr, was published online by the Hill.¹ It’s a nine-page piece of legislation that would require people to comply with any authorized court order for data—and if that data is “unintelligible,” the legislation would demand that it be rendered “intelligible.” In other words, the bill would make illegal the sort of user-controlled encryption that’s in every modern iPhone, in all billion devices that run Whatsapp’s messaging service, and in dozens of other tech products. “This basically outlaws end-to-end encryption,” says Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “It’s effectively the most anti-crypto bill of all anti-crypto bills.”

 

Kevin Bankston, the director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, goes even further: “I gotta say in my nearly 20 years of work in tech policy this is easily the most ludicrous, dangerous, technically illiterate proposal I’ve ever seen,” he says.

 

The bill, Hall and Bankston point out, doesn’t specifically suggest any sort of backdoored encryption or other means to even attempt to balance privacy and encryption, and actually claims to not require any particular design limitations on products. Instead, it states only that communications firms must provide unencrypted data to law enforcement or the means for law enforcement to grab that data themselves. “To uphold the rule of law and protect the security and interests of the United States, all persons receiving an authorized judicial order for information or data must provide, in a timely manner, responsive and intelligible information or data, or appropriate technical assistance to obtain such information or data.”

 

 

More at the Link:

 

 

 

Yet another example of what happens when lawyers try to operate on our battlefield. These buffoons don't even realize that encryption does 50x more to prevent crime and terror than it enables.

 

Lawyers: get this through your head, you don't belong here. You don't understand how this environment works, and thus you have no authority here. If you want something from us, normally all you have to do is ask. F with us, and we'll beat you every time. Ask Eliot Spitzer, or today, Andrew Cuomo, how their "tax the internet" plans have worked out. How many more beatings do you need? We'll keep providing them, if you keep stepping.

 

Now, Apple was being silly, but so was the FBI. You can't unring the encryption bell. Nobody can. How do these 2 lawyer clowns plan to prevent people from using private encryption? How do they enforce this law? Try? And I will set up a free crypto server center in the Caymans tomorrow, merely show a few ads in the "Loading.../Splash" page, make ~$500 million in my first year, and even more if I add integration ports to popular software/sites. Yawn. I can write this archictecture right now. Or later, when I take a dump.

 

In any event, a technology problem is never, ever going to get solved by government, lawyers, or law enforcement. A technology problem requires that technology people solve it. And, I'm not at all convinced that encryption represents a problem that must be solved. Moreover, again, I am completely convinced that encryption does a lot more to prevent crime than enable it.

 

What everybody has to come to terms with is: signals intelligence is not the walk in the park it once was for government. It never should have been, but, the internet was like a newborn. It didn't know how to defend itself. Scamming somebody's browser history without a warrant never should have happened in the first place.

 

Now they cry because of losing that, due to proxys and encryption?

 

Hey government? How about we go back to what you are supposed to be doing? Using human intelligence, getting warrants, and doing real investigations, not sitting on your ass in your office collecting data, most of which you can't use? I know it sucks that the easy way is being taken away. But, that's all it ever was.

 

I'll say it again: they are so unwilling to even try profiling...that they'd rather look like idiots, and put forward something like this instead. Stupidity.

Edited April 9, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[Deranged Rhino]

 

For DR;

 

 

I've let this drop a bit in terms of posting in this thread, but there have been a lot of interesting (and shady) developments lately with regards to this. This bill being one of them.

 

More: Surveillance is about social control, not terrorism

 

Perhaps the most provocative discussion of the night came when Panelist Micheal Vonn, also Policy Director of the BC Civil Liberties Association, asked him about why governments pursue mass surveillance projects, even though empirical evidence has shown thatthey are ineffective in stopping terrorism.

Snowden argued that terrorism is used as a justification to the public for the existence of these programs. What are the true motivations of programs such as PRISM? According to Snowden they include “diplomatic manipulation, economic espionage, and social control.”

He came prepared with a litany of examples to support his controversial thesis, including the government’s attempts to track the pornographic viewing habits of “radicals” in order to discredit them later on. Snowden also noted that GCHQ, the British equivalent of the NSA, has categorized journalists as a “threat,” falling between hackers and terrorists on their scale.

Inevitably, the topic of Bill C-51 came up, now known as Canada’s official Anti-terrorism Act. Said Snowden, “Terrorism is a serious threat, but let’s not pretend that it’s an existential threat to our society.” He suggested that the purpose of such a law in Canada may be to contribute to an international database, from which intelligence agencies such as the NSA to the GCHQ could draw.

 

http://www.the-peak.ca/2016/04/snowden-surveillance-is-about-social-control-not-terrorism/

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Actually, I don't think he ever learned that.

Perhaps, but I bet Valerie Jarret did.

[/dev/null]

How do these 2 lawyer clowns plan to prevent people from using private encryption? How do they enforce this law? Try? And I will set up a free crypto server center in the Caymans tomorrow, merely show a few ads in the "Loading.../Splash" page, make ~$500 million in my first year, and even more if I add integration ports to popular software/sites. Yawn. I can write this archictecture right now. Or later, when I take a dump.

Make private encryption illegal. Encryption pairs will only be generated by a Government CA, thus the Authorities will always have access to the private key.

 

Encryption for everyone administered by the Government. It's only fair

 

Ugh, trying to think like a Progressive gives me a tummyache

[OCinBuffalo]

 

I've let this drop a bit in terms of posting in this thread, but there have been a lot of interesting (and shady) developments lately with regards to this. This bill being one of them.

 

More: Surveillance is about social control, not terrorism

 

Perhaps the most provocative discussion of the night came when Panelist Micheal Vonn, also Policy Director of the BC Civil Liberties Association, asked him about why governments pursue mass surveillance projects, even though empirical evidence has shown thatthey are ineffective in stopping terrorism.

Snowden argued that terrorism is used as a justification to the public for the existence of these programs. What are the true motivations of programs such as PRISM? According to Snowden they include “diplomatic manipulation, economic espionage, and social control.”

He came prepared with a litany of examples to support his controversial thesis, including the government’s attempts to track the pornographic viewing habits of “radicals” in order to discredit them later on. Snowden also noted that GCHQ, the British equivalent of the NSA, has categorized journalists as a “threat,” falling between hackers and terrorists on their scale.

Inevitably, the topic of Bill C-51 came up, now known as Canada’s official Anti-terrorism Act. Said Snowden, “Terrorism is a serious threat, but let’s not pretend that it’s an existential threat to our society.” He suggested that the purpose of such a law in Canada may be to contribute to an international database, from which intelligence agencies such as the NSA to the GCHQ could draw.

 

http://www.the-peak.ca/2016/04/snowden-surveillance-is-about-social-control-not-terrorism/

1. I wonder: do the people who got to see their friends and family blown to pieces right in front of them in the 1000s of terror attacks since 9/11 consider terrorism an existential threat to our society? If Snowden got his balls blown off by a radical Islamic terrorist bomb, I bet he'd change his tune. Why? Because he considers himself a PART of society, just as much as he considers his balls a PART of him.

 

Why is it that we keep pretending that the people who die in these attacks aren't part of society? Is it because they are now dead, and, "well it wasn't me, so..."? If they are part of society, and they are killed/maimed then the threat is, by definition, existential to society. Their existence has been terminated. Part of society, part of society's existence, is now dead.

 

So let's go back to parts: I wonder what part of Snowden he'd allow to be cut off, because losing it didn't represent an "existential" threat. An ear? How about a toe? I mean, after all the rest of him can exist and go on with his life. So, by Snowden's definition: cutting of some of his parts is not an existential threat to him. After all, it's not like it would change anything, right?

 

2. Micheal Moore said "there is no terrorist threat" and there's been 2000+ attacks since. Talking about the existence of terrorist threats doesn't do much for the left. Anybody heard from fatass recently? Perhaps its time for the left to focus its "wisdom" elsewhere?

 

3. Apparently Snowden doesn't understand anything about infowars, or psyops, or really anything about war. Discrediting the enemy is perhaps the most valueable tool in a war whose enemy's beliefs are predicated mostly on a religion's fundamentalist idealism. Sapping the effect of the enemy's fanaticism, and therefore his ability to recruit dumb and/or impressionable minds, by exposing his hypocrisy/personal violations of that idealism...that's better than an armored brigade. The armored brigade can't be everywhere in the world at once. But, the story about the porn can be.

 

4. It is my civil liberty not to be killed because of somebody else's dopey values. Dopey values suppressing the ability of law enforcement to go after the most likely bad guys, and instead having to look at everybody "equally", because dopey values says so, violates my rights, and violates my social contract with my government. I don't pay taxes so that the good guys lose. I want to win for my money, and I have every right to tell anybody who is trying to make me lose on my investment to STFU.

 

5. Once again, if you don't want bulk data collection, which means: you want to do IT the right way? Then, you do want targeted data collection. Not only is this doing it right, it has a much higher chance of providing actionable intelligence...and here is the key...in TIME for somebody to act on it.

[OCinBuffalo]

Make private encryption illegal. Encryption pairs will only be generated by a Government CA, thus the Authorities will always have access to the private key.

 

Encryption for everyone administered by the Government. It's only fair

 

Ugh, trying to think like a Progressive gives me a tummyache

Sorry dude, keyless encryption is already here. The inventors applied for a patent here, in 1999.

 

IF I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times, lawyers and government don't even know what they don't know.

 

We've had mylar in place for quite some time now. I can't wait for the day some HIPAA auditor comes along and asks to see my dual authentication approach and she is confronted with trying to comprehend mylar instead.

[/dev/null]

Sorry dude, keyless encryption is already here. The inventors applied for a patent here, in 1999.

 

IF I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times, lawyers and government don't even know what they don't know.

 

We've had mylar in place for quite some time now. I can't wait for the day some HIPAA auditor comes along and asks to see my dual authentication approach and she is confronted with trying to comprehend mylar instead.

That's why you make it illegal duh.

[Deranged Rhino]

1. I wonder: do the people who got to see their friends and family blown to pieces right in front of them in the 1000s of terror attacks since 9/11 consider terrorism an existential threat to our society? If Snowden got his balls blown off by a radical Islamic terrorist bomb, I bet he'd change his tune. Why? Because he considers himself a PART of society, just as much as he considers his balls a PART of him.

 

Why is it that we keep pretending that the people who die in these attacks aren't part of society? Is it because they are now dead, and, "well it wasn't me, so..."? If they are part of society, and they are killed/maimed then the threat is, by definition, existential to society. Their existence has been terminated. Part of society, part of society's existence, is now dead.

 

So let's go back to parts: I wonder what part of Snowden he'd allow to be cut off, because losing it didn't represent an "existential" threat. An ear? How about a toe? I mean, after all the rest of him can exist and go on with his life. So, by Snowden's definition: cutting of some of his parts is not an existential threat to him. After all, it's not like it would change anything, right?

 

2. Micheal Moore said "there is no terrorist threat" and there's been 2000+ attacks since. Talking about the existence of terrorist threats doesn't do much for the left. Anybody heard from fatass recently? Perhaps its time for the left to focus its "wisdom" elsewhere?

 

3. Apparently Snowden doesn't understand anything about infowars, or psyops, or really anything about war. Discrediting the enemy is perhaps the most valueable tool in a war whose enemy's beliefs are predicated mostly on a religion's fundamentalist idealism. Sapping the effect of the enemy's fanaticism, and therefore his ability to recruit dumb and/or impressionable minds, by exposing his hypocrisy/personal violations of that idealism...that's better than an armored brigade. The armored brigade can't be everywhere in the world at once. But, the story about the porn can be.

 

4. It is my civil liberty not to be killed because of somebody else's dopey values. Dopey values suppressing the ability of law enforcement to go after the most likely bad guys, and instead having to look at everybody "equally", because dopey values says so, violates my rights, and violates my social contract with my government. I don't pay taxes so that the good guys lose. I want to win for my money, and I have every right to tell anybody who is trying to make me lose on my investment to STFU.

 

5. Once again, if you don't want bulk data collection, which means: you want to do IT the right way? Then, you do want targeted data collection. Not only is this doing it right, it has a much higher chance of providing actionable intelligence...and here is the key...in TIME for somebody to act on it.

 

 

Those eyes aren't rolling at you, they're watching the point sail completely over your head.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

 

Those eyes aren't rolling at you, they're watching the point sail completely over your head.

Which point?

 

The one that says that the opposite of bulk collection...is targeted collection...which is also known as: profiling?

 

Or, the one that says if you want no collection, you're an unmitigated moron, like Snowden?

 

Dance all you want. You know that what I am saying is...how it is.

[OCinBuffalo]

That's why you make it illegal duh.

How can the government always have access to the private key, as you suggested, if no key exists? You want to make something illegal, that I don't have? Fine! You want to tell me end to end crypto is illegal, I'll see your ass in court, for about a half an hour. You want to tell me keyless encryption is illegal, I'll just laugh and say "prove it".

 

Look, I'm just telling you what I would tell them, if they ever dared to audit us. Which they haven't, and they won't. Not ever.

 

That's why this "law" is hilarious. They are demanding that we not do something a certain way: and all that does is make us come up with 5 other approaches to do the same thing a different way. And, like with mylar, different ways that are beyond the ken of these lawyer idiots, have already been deployed into production, never mind designed.

[/dev/null]

How can the government always have access to the private key, as you suggested, if no key exists? You want to make something illegal, that I don't have? Fine! You want to tell me end to end crypto is illegal, I'll see your ass in court, for about a half an hour. You want to tell me keyless encryption is illegal, I'll just laugh and say "prove it".

 

Look, I'm just telling you what I would tell them, if they ever dared to audit us. Which they haven't, and they won't. Not ever.

 

That's why this "law" is hilarious. They are demanding that we not do something a certain way: and all that does is make us come up with 5 other approaches to do the same thing a different way. And, like with mylar, different ways that are beyond the ken of these lawyer idiots, have already been deployed into production, never mind designed.

maybe the government could pass a law requiring Universal Background Checks before issuing encryption keys?

[DC Tom]

Sorry dude, keyless encryption is already here. The inventors applied for a patent here, in 1999.

 

IF I've said it once, I've said it 1000 times, lawyers and government don't even know what they don't know.

 

We've had mylar in place for quite some time now. I can't wait for the day some HIPAA auditor comes along and asks to see my dual authentication approach and she is confronted with trying to comprehend mylar instead.

Mylar isn't keyless encryption.

 

And I would dispute that patent is for keyless encryption, too. It has a key. It just doesn't have a key exchange.